Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
Municipal Court of California, County of Imperial — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
Bennett v. Brownlow
Arizona Supreme Court · 2005-09-09 · cited 30×
The case involved Tammie Bennett's challenge to a Yavapai County ordinance requiring that major commercial events on the Courthouse Plaza be sponsored by a recognized non-profit organization. Bennett, who had organized an annual arts and crafts festival on the Plaza for years, alleged that the ordinance violated her First Amendment free speech rights after her 2001 permit application was denied in favor of a competing non-profit sponsor. The Arizona Supreme Court held that Bennett lacked standing to bring the claim. The court reasoned that standing requires a showing of particularized injury to the plaintiff, but Bennett's application listed a qualifying non-profit sponsor and the denial was based on a preference for the prior sponsor rather than the non-profit requirement itself, so she suffered no personal harm from the challenged provision.
free speechprocedurecivil rights
State v. Cromwell
Arizona Supreme Court · 2005-08-17 · cited 72×
The case involved Robert Louis Cromwell, who was convicted by a Maricopa County jury of first-degree murder, sexual assault, and two counts of aggravated assault arising from the October 2001 killing of eleven-year-old Stephanie Shortt, along with assaults on her mother and a friend. The trial court imposed a death sentence for the murder, life imprisonment without release for thirty-five years for the sexual assault, and ten-year prison terms for each aggravated assault. On direct appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and sentences, holding that the trial evidence supported the verdicts and that Arizona's death penalty statute complied with the state and federal constitutions by adequately guiding sentencing discretion and allocating burdens of proof.
criminal law
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande
Arizona Supreme Court · 2004-12-10 · cited 1×
The case involved two Casa Grande residents challenging a city ordinance rezoning property for a Wal-Mart development, alleging the city failed to provide required notices for public hearings under city code and state statutes before the city council approved it. After opponents gathered signatures, voters upheld the ordinance in a May 2002 referendum by a narrow margin. More than three months later, the plaintiffs filed suit seeking to invalidate the ordinance and referendum on notice grounds. The Arizona Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's judgment in favor of the city and Wal-Mart, holding that the plaintiffs' post-referendum filing was untimely and that they had waived any challenge by allowing the election to proceed without objection. The core reasoning rested on principles of waiver and estoppel by laches, as parties cannot contest procedural defects in an election only after unfavorable results.
propertyprocedureelectionsbusiness & regulatory
McKaney v. Foreman
Arizona Supreme Court · 2004-11-02 · cited 73×
The case concerned whether, under the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions and following Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona, aggravating factors under A.R.S. § 13-703(F) must be specifically alleged in the indictment and supported by a grand jury's probable cause finding before the state can seek the death penalty. Petitioner McKaney, charged with first-degree murder and other offenses, moved to dismiss the state's notice of intent to seek death and its notice of three aggravating factors, arguing they were essential elements requiring such charging and probable cause support; the trial court denied the motion. The Arizona Supreme Court accepted special action jurisdiction and held that the aggravating factors need not be alleged in the charging document or supported by grand jury probable cause. The court reasoned that due process notice requirements are satisfied by other procedures and that Arizona rules, including Rule 13.5(c), provide an adequate pre-trial mechanism for a neutral magistrate to assess the legal sufficiency and probable cause basis of any alleged aggravators.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re Zawada
Arizona Supreme Court · 2004-07-01 · cited 14×
This disciplinary case concerned Arizona prosecutor Thomas J. Zawada's conduct during the 1994 trial of Alex Hughes for murder and related charges, where Hughes raised insanity and self-defense claims supported by multiple mental health experts. The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the matter sua sponte after the Disciplinary Commission recommended censure and probation, holding that Zawada committed knowing and intentional misconduct by making fear-based appeals to the jury, harassing experts on cross-examination, and arguing without evidence that defense experts fabricated diagnoses for payment. These actions violated ethical rules on competence, good-faith assertions, trial tactics, and conduct prejudicial to justice, leading to reversal of Hughes' convictions on appeal and dismissal of charges on double-jeopardy grounds. The court determined the recommended sanctions were inadequate given aggravating factors including prior similar misconduct, and imposed a six-month-and-one-day suspension, one-year probation, referral to a member assistance program, and fifteen hours of continuing education on psychiatric testimony before handling mental-health cases.
criminal law
State v. Davolt
Arizona Supreme Court · 2004-02-17 · cited 223×
The case involved James Edward Davolt II, who was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder (one based on felony murder and the other on both felony murder and premeditation), first-degree burglary, theft, arson of an occupied structure, and theft of means of transportation after the deaths of an elderly couple in their Arizona home. The trial court imposed death sentences for the murders and consecutive prison terms for the remaining offenses. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed all convictions but remanded the death sentences for a determination of whether Davolt, who was a juvenile at the time of the offenses, possessed sufficient maturity and moral responsibility to be eligible for capital punishment. The court also remanded the non-capital sentences because the trial court failed to consider Davolt's age as a statutory mitigating factor as required by Arizona law.
criminal lawprocedure